Unnatural Offences

 Unnatural offences, as defined under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), refer to certain sexual acts that are considered against the order of nature.

   This included acts such as anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality.

    Section 377 : Section 377 of the IPC was introduced during the British colonial era in 1861 and criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." The wording of the section was ambiguous, leaving room for subjective interpretations.

 • Definition : 

    As per section 377 of the ipc - whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, women, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 10 years and shall also be lable to fine.

Section 377 is considered a serious offence, hence, it is cognizable and non-bailable in nature. It can be tried in the court of a magistrate of first class.

The current scope of Section 377 primarily revolves around non-consensual and forced acts, bestiality, and acts that are considered grossly indecent : -

1. Non-consensual acts: Section 377 criminalizes non-consensual sexual acts, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the individuals involved. These acts involve any form of penetration without the consent of the other person.

2. Bestiality: Section 377 also covers acts of bestiality, which involve sexual acts between humans and animals. Such acts are considered unnatural and are prohibited.

3. Grossly indecent acts: This aspect of Section 377 criminalizes acts that are considered grossly indecent or offensive to public sensibilities. While the definition of "grossly indecent" is subjective, the courts have interpreted it to include acts that are lascivious, obscene, or against the moral standards of society.

 • Important Cases :

1. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009): 

This landmark case challenged the constitutionality of Section 377. The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that criminalizing consensual homosexual acts violates the fundamental rights of equality, privacy, and dignity. The court declared that Section 377, to the extent that it criminalizes consensual homosexual acts, is unconstitutional. However, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

2. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013):

Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation is a significant legal case in India that dealt with the interpretation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to "Unnatural Offences." The case sparked a national debate on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community and the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships.

This case came as an appeal against the Delhi High Court's decision in the Naz Foundation case. In 2013, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's ruling, effectively re-criminalizing same-sex relationships under Section 377. 

The court held that it was for the legislature to consider whether to repeal or amend Section 377 and that the judiciary should not intervene in matters of legislation.

Consequently, Section 377 was reinstated.

3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): 

In this case, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court revisited the issue of the constitutionality of Section 377. 

The Bench unanimously found that the criminalisation of sexual acts between consenting adults to be violation of the Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of Indian Constitution.

* the court delivered its unanimous verdict, declaring portions of the law relating to consensual sexual acts between adults unconstitutional.

* However, other portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality remain in force.

While reading the judgment, the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra pronounced that the court found "criminalising carnal intercourse" to be "irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional".

The court ruled that LGBT people in India are entitled to all constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by the Constitution of India.

Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Although not directly related to Section 377, this case is important in the context of privacy rights. The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and encompasses the right to make choices about one's intimate and sexual preferences.